Talk:Latakia/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Initial comments[edit]
On a quick read through, this article appears to be at or about GA-level. I'll therefore continue the review, going through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Overall summary[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A wide-ranging, well-illustrated article, of GA-standard.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
A good Good-Article. Congratulations on the quality of the article. Its now a GA.Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I'll tell Yazan and Spencer the good news. Thanks for the review! --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)